Earl | Define Earl at Dictionary.com earl noun 1. a British nobleman of a rank below that of marquis and above that of viscount: called count for a time after the Norman conquest. The wife of an earl is a countess. 2. (in Anglo-Saxon England) a governor of one of the great divisions of England, including East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, and Wessex. Origin of earl Old English 900 before 900; Middle English erl, Old English eorl; cognate with Old Saxon erl man, Old Norse jarl chieftain Earl a male given name: from the old English word meaning “noble.”. Dictionary.com Unabridged Examples from the Web for earl Expand Contemporary Examples His wife is the niece of an earl who once worked as a lady-in-waiting to a royal duchess. The Kensington District Geraldine Edith Mitton He could remember clearly now, the earl's explanations of the action of the coronet. Millennium Everett B. Cole The Smuggler's Cave George A. Birmingham He thought of the names he had heard used by the guards of the earl.

Millennium Everett B. Cole British Dictionary definitions for earl Expand noun 1. (in the British Isles) a nobleman ranking below a marquess and above a viscount Female equivalent countess 2. (in Anglo-Saxon England) a royal governor of any of the large divisions of the kingdom, such as Wessex Word Origin Old English eorl; related to Old Norse jarl chieftain, Old Saxon erl man Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 Word Origin and History for earl Expand n. Old English eorl "brave man, warrior, leader, chief" (contrasted with ceorl "churl"), from Proto-Germanic *erlo-z, of uncertain origin.

In Anglo-Saxon poetry, "a warrior, a brave man;" in later Old English, "nobleman," especially a Danish under-king (equivalent of cognate Old Norse jarl), then one of the viceroys under the Danish dynasty in England. After 1066 adopted as the equivalent of Latin comes (see count (n.)). Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper etymology - Why is the feminine equivalent of an earl a countess rather than an earless? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange Why is the feminine equivalent of an earl a countess rather than an earless? up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 A comment by Tim Lymington notes that the wife of an earl is a countess. Why is this so? Shouldn't it have been earless? Was this perhaps a conscious decision due to its homography with ear-less ? Did a jarl ever have a jarless? Ah. Perhaps not. 1 -ess is a suffix from French; the most common Germanic suffix is -in, so if there were an inherited feminine form of jarl it would probably be jarlin.

One can speculate that this would have come into English as earlen (the only desinence of -in I can think of in English is vixen, from fox). – Colin Fine Jan 19 '13 at 19:41 up vote 5 down vote The male version of countess is sometimes count. From Wikipedia : The word count came into English from the French comte, itself from Latin comes—in its accusative comitem— meaning "companion", and later "companion of the emperor, delegate of the emperor". The adjective form of the word is "comital". The British and Irish equivalent is an earl (whose wife is a "countess", for lack of an English term). An earl was originally another title, but later came to be equivalent to count: An earl is a member of the nobility. The title is Anglo-Saxon, akin to the Scandinavian form jarl, and meant "chieftain", particularly a chieftain set to rule a territory in a king's stead. In Scandinavia, it became obsolete in the Middle Ages and was replaced with duke (hertig/hertug).

In later medieval Britain, it became the equivalent of the continental count (in England in the earlier period, it was more akin to duke; in Scotland it assimilated the concept of mormaer). ... The Norman-derived equivalent "count" was not introduced following the Norman Conquest of England though "countess" was and is used for the female title. As Geoffrey Hughes writes, "It is a likely speculation that the Norman French title 'Count' was abandoned in England in favour of the Germanic 'Earl' […] precisely because of the uncomfortable phonetic proximity to cunt". 1 To further complicate things: "An earl has the title Earl of [X] when the title originates from a placename, or Earl [X] when the title comes from a surname. In either case, he is referred to as Lord [X], and his wife as Lady [X]. A countess who holds an earldom in her own right also uses Lady [X], but her husband does not have a title (unless he has one in his own right)." – Hugo Jan 19 '13 at 6:32 Thanks! So, the reason is "for lack of a better term"?

How dull :( Any idea what female jarls were called? – coleopterist Jan 19 '13 at 7:18 1 As far as I can tell, jarls were only men with no special title for their wives, although the first ever female Guizer Jarl was chosen in 2010, there's no mention of a feminine title. shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/01/… (But this actual title only dates from 1906, the role was only created in 1881, and some say it's "based upon a flawed Viking perspective".) – Hugo Jan 19 '13 at 7:32 1 Before the title died out, jarl was also used for a higher rank in Scandinavia, including rulers of petty kingdoms. I imagine it is for this reason that we normally translate Greve and Lensgreve as Count rather than Earl even though the latter would be a more "complete" translation into English.

– Jon Hanna Jan 19 '13 at 14:09 So referring to, for example, Charles Spencer, brother of Diana, in a sentence, one would use his name, "Charles Spencer", as I just did, or "Lord Spencer", but not "Earl Spencer"? Example, "I was in Marks and Sparks the other day when I happened to see Lord Spencer shopping for unmentionables". Not "I was in Marks and Sparks the other day when I happened to see Earl Spencer...". Is that right? Or is it "the Earl Spencer", with the definite article? Is Lord/Lady [X] a form of address only? – Steven Solomon Aug 29 '15 at 0:41 Courtesy Titles Courtesy Titles A peer's wife and children are granted the use of certain titles, depending upon the rank of the peer. Here is an extremely oversimplified chart, so please read the explanations which follow carefully.

Peerage Type The Honourable <Firstname> <Surname> The Honourable <Firstname> <Surname> * Eldest sons (heirs) of earls, marquesses, and dukes are allowed to adopt their father's next-highest title as a courtesy, which they use in every way as if it were a "real" peerage. (47) So, for example, the Duke of Avon's heir is known as the Marquess of Vidal, which is the duke's highest subordinate title. His subordinate titles are distributed by courtesy only to his direct heirs, that is, his eldest son, and his eldest son's eldest son, etc. The Duke of Devonshire's eldest son bears by courtesy the title the Marquess of Hartington, and Lord Hartington's eldest son (b. 1969) is the Earl of Burlington. (48) If Lord Hartington were to predecease his father, then Lord Burlington would become the Marquess of Hartington, and his son, if he were to have one, would be born as Earl of Burlington.

* It was a 17th century custom to throw in a number of new lesser titles to "fill in" when creating a new higher title, so the older a dukedom or an earldom, the more likely the second title is to be a much lower one, skipping steps, if you will: the eldest sons of the Dukes of Norfolk, Grafton, St. Albans, Richmond, Buccleuch, Newcastle, and Northumberland are earls, the Dukes of Dorset's and Manchester's are viscounts, and the Duke of Somerset's only a Lord. (49) But since Dorset's and Machester's eldest sons are viscounts, their eldest sons cannot take a barony as a courtesy title. If there is no courtesy title available, the eldest son of a duke, marquess, or earl takes the family name as a courtesy title. (49a) Several marquesses have the same title as marquess and earl, e.g., the Marquess and Earl of Hertford and the Marquess and Earl of Salisbury.

In these cases, the heir skips the matching peerage, and takes the next highest title as a courtesy title, to distinguish him from his father. The heir of the Marquess and Earl of Salisbury is thus Viscount Cranbourne, and the heir of the Marquess and Earl of Hertford is thus Earl of Yarmouth (whose father happens to have two earldoms at his disposal). The Duke of Wellington similarly holds two marquessates: that of Wellington and that of Douro, so his heir takes the courtesy title Marquess Douro to distinguish him from his father. [During the 1st Duke's lifetime, all of his lesser titles were also either Wellington or Douro, and the family name, Wellesley, was used as a title by his brother, the 1st Marquess Wellesley, so I'm not sure what courtesy title would have been given to the eldest son of the eldest son of the 1st Duke of Wellington.

Fortunately, the issue never came up; and eventually the Dukes of Wellington also inherited the lesser titles of the 1st Marquess Wellesley (whose title became extinct upon his death), which include the Earl of Mornington and Viscount Wellesley, so there are currently three titles available to the direct heirs of the Duke of Wellington.] It is important to note, however, that an heir of a peer who is not a direct descendant of that peer (i.e., his eldest son or his eldest son's eldest son) does not take any secondary title as a courtesy title. He remains known by whatever title (if any) he derived from his own father until he accedes to the peerage. This is a common mistake in historical romances. For example, the 6th Duke of Devonshire never married. Since he also had no brothers, his heir was a cousin. The cousin was a great-grandson of the 4th Duke; before the 6th Duke died, he was plain Mr. William Cavendish. Even though the line of succession was clear, Mr. William Cavendish was never given the courtesy title Marquess of Hartington. Similarly, after Mr.

William Cavendish succeeded and became the 7th Duke, he was in turn succeeded by his eldest son, who became the 8th Duke. But the 8th Duke had no son, and he was succeeded by his nephew, a son of his younger brother, Lord Edward. Before he acceded, the 8th Duke was plain Mr. Victor Cavendish. (49b) Children of barons and viscounts and younger sons of earls are known by their First and family Surname (not their father's title), prefixed by "The Honourable," for example, The Honourable Eugenia Wraxton. (46) Sons of dukes and marquesses prefix "Lord" to their First and family Surname (not their father's title), for example, Lord Lionel Ware. (51) Sons of earls, however, only get to be called "The Honourable," not "Lord," for example, Col. The Hon. Charles Audley (who, like Lord Lionel, derives his title not from his brother, but from his late father).

(52) Daughters of earls, marquesses, and dukes similarly are known as "Lady <Firstname> <Surname>," for example, Lady Serena Carlow. (50) Daughters take the precedence , if not the actual title, of their eldest brother. (55) (See the explanation of parcener .) Duchesses (45) are referred to as "The Duchess" or "Her Grace" and addressed as "Duchess" or "Your Grace." (45a) All other wives of peers are "Lady <Husband'sTitle>," for example, Lady Spenborough. Wives of commoners who bear courtesy titles also take their ranks and titles (with a few careful exceptions outlined below) from their husbands, so they are also "Lady <Husband'sTitle>." If she is the wife of the younger son of a duke or marquess, this means that she will be addressed, for example, as Lady Lionel Ware. Or, if her husband's courtesy title is her father-in-law's next-highest title, she will be addressed as if her husband actually enjoyed that peerage, for example, Lady Castlereagh.

The daughters of the 11th Duke of Marlborough are known as Lady Henrietta Spencer-Churchill and Lady Alexandra Spencer-Churchill, and his younger son is known as Lord Edward Spencer-Churchill. (53) When Lord Edward marries, his wife will take his title, but since it is merely a prefix to his name, she will be known as Lady Edward Spencer-Churchill. However, it does not work the other way; when Lady Henrietta married, her husband could not then become known as Lord Henrietta Spencer-Churchill. He is still plain Mr. Nathan Gelber; she is known as Lady Henrietta Gelber, and her son, David, is plain Mr. David Gelber. (54) Similarly, Mr. Beaumaris, whose mother was the daughter of a duke, is a plain Mr., like his father. Why is Lord Lionel known as Lord Lionel rather than Lord Ware?

The first mention of him calls him "Lord Lionel Ware," but after that he is just "Lord Lionel." The rule is (as above): younger sons of dukes and marquesses are styled "Lord <Firstname> <Surname>." But I have quoted this question in its entirety because it demonstrates a very common misunderstanding of titles which I see all the time in Regency romances. Among other things, it shows the confusion between the surname and the title (see Territorial Titles ). Gilly's titles are: "the Most Noble Adolphus Gillespie Vernon Ware, Duke of Sale and Marquis of Ormesby; Earl of Sale; Baron Ware of Thame; Baron Ware of Stoven; and Baron Ware of Rufford..." So Ware is the surname, and Sale is the highest title. Notice that he is introduced with his (full) name first, followed by a comma, followed by his string of titles, greatest to least (see John Hopfner's explanation of Gilly's titles).

Even if he were merely Baron Ware, he would never be introduced as "Lord Adolphus Ware." He would be "Adolphus, Baron Ware." This is a very common error -- but you can't get from "Lord Lionel Ware" to "Lord Ware." Peerages don't use first names. The very fact that the "Lord" comes before his first name tells you that it is a courtesy title, not a peerage. It might help to remember the most famous example (to Americans, anyway): Alfred, Lord Tennyson. This is also true for ladies. A peeress is never "Lady Serena Rotherham"; she is simply "Lady Rotherham," because, again, if the "Lady" title precedes the first name, that tells you that the title is a courtesy title which derives from her father's rank, not her husband's (or her own, if she is a peeress in her own right ). So before she married, Lady Rotherham was Lady Serena Carlow. (There is an exception to this rule concerning peers' daughters who are married to the heirs of peers who also bear courtesy titles; see the discussion below .) Lord Lionel's wife is Lady Lionel - which is correct.

She would use the title Lady with her husband's first name. We can thus assume that she was not "Lady <Firstname>" in her own right when she married the former Duke of Sale's second son. No, we cannot assume that. All we can assume is that her rank before she married was lower than the rank of the wife of a duke's younger son. She could be an earl's daughter, which would allow her the "Lady <Firstname>" style, but an earl's daughter is below the wife of a duke's younger son in the Table of Precedence , so she would take the style "Lady Lionel" from her husband. If she were the daughter of a duke, she could maintain her courtesy title by birth ("Lady <Firstname>") even after marriage with the younger son of a duke. (A detailed explanation of this follows below .) Secondly, a person is never Lord/Lady X " in his/her own right " unless that person actually inherits the peerage.

A person who is granted a courtesy title by birth -- even if that title is one of his father's lesser peerages -- does not "hold the title in his/her own right." The 1st Duke of Marlborough 's eldest daughter, who did inherit the peerage (via Parliamentary and royal warrant), was Duchess of Marlborough in her own right. But before her father died, she was not Lady Henrietta "in her own right." She was Lady Henrietta by courtesy. When she married the Earl of Godolphin, she was the Countess of Godolphin by courtesy (even though she was called a "peeress" after her marriage). And her husband, the earl, did not become Duke of Marlborough by courtesy; he remained a mere earl (much like the husband of a queen is not a king by courtesy). When Fanny marries Hector, will she still retain the title of Lady Fanny even though Hector is just a Mr.? Lady Spenborough was never "Lady Fanny," which is a courtesy title only bestowed upon the daughter of an earl, marquess, or duke.

Before she married Lord Spenborough, Fanny had been plain Miss Claypole, daughter of Sir William Claypole and Lady Claypole -- children of knights and baronets having no special form of address. As the wife of a peer, she is not known as "Lady Fanny Spenborough"; instead, she is "Lady Spenborough"-- and this would be true no matter what her parentage, because all wives of peers take their titles and ranks from their husbands. Fanny is not even the Dowager Lady Spenborough since she is not the mother or stepmother of the new earl. (55a) So now there are two Lady Spenboroughs-- but one can assume that when one mentions "Lady Spenborough" that she is the wife of the present incumbent; if one meant Fanny, one would have to distinguish her as "Fanny, Lady Spenborough." However, contrary to what I had written here before, Lady Spenborough would retain her title (but not her precedence) of Lady Spenborough if she marries a commoner or a lesser-ranking peer.

According to Black, "[i]f marrying into a lower rank of the peerage or with a commoner [a peeress] retains her title. But this [is] by courtesy only, unless she is a peeress in her own right." (55b) Thus Fanny and her husband would be introduced as Lady Spenborough and Mr. Kirkby. Serena, on the other hand, is known as "Lady Serena Carlow" because her father was an earl. If she were to marry Hector, she would be a mere Mrs. Kirkby, but since her own title (Lady Serena) is higher that the title she would derive from her husband (Mrs.), she would get to keep her first courtesy title and thus would be known as "Lady Serena Kirkby." But since Ivo is a peer, she will adopt the courtesy title she is allowed as his wife: Marchioness of Rotherham (her first name would not be used; see the rule above). She will be properly addressed as Lady Rotherham, and (I think) properly announced (at a party or visit) as The Marchioness of Rotheram.

But--- Unlike dukes and duchesses, lower ranks of the peerage are not spoken of as "The Marquess and Marchioness of Rotheram," but as "Lord and Lady Rotheram." According to Black, "[t]here are a few formal occasions on which the full title would be used, but it would never occur in intimate speech. This shibboleth is so often transgressed by novelists and others who love the peerage better than they know its ways that it may seem a little hard to believe how wrong it appears to be among the people who know." (55c) (Of course, this raises as many questions as it answers to an ignorant American like me.) Married Daughters of Peers I'm surprised how many authors make really bad mistakes with details such as titles. For instance, they'll refer to the wife of a peer as "Lady <Firstname> <Surname>," and so on. Why is it so hard to get this stuff right? You'd think if they're going to the bother of setting a book in an earlier period, they could look it up!

This has been bothering me ever since it was posted (on the Heyer Mailing List ) and I've been looking for a coherent answer. I agree with Rosalyn that many writers don't bother to look things up -- read one just recently where a duke was consistently referred to as "Lord X" -- but there are also many instances of wives being correctly referred to as "Lady <Firstname> <Husband'sTitle>." The rule is that a woman who marries a peer takes her courtesy title from her husband. Period. However, if a peer's daughter marries anyone who is not a peer, including commoners, knights, baronets, or any sons of a peer (including his heir who bears a courtesy title), then she may, if she chooses, maintain her own rank as long as it outranks her husband's. When her husband inherits a peerage, however, she must abandon her former title and precedence and she acquires her husband's. (77a) Part of the explanation for this exception can be found in the Order of Precedence , below. This contained, for me, some surprises. Daughters of dukes outrank all ladies except duchesses, marchionesses, and royalty.

Therefore, unless a duke's daughter marries an actual peer or a duke's eldest son, she would be able to maintain the courtesy title derived from her father, and be known as "Lady <Firstname> <Husband'sSurname>" or "Lady <Firstname><Husband'sTitle>" (if he is not an actual peer but has a courtesy title). So, for example, the eldest daughter of the Duke of Devonshire in Regency times, Lady Georgiana Cavendish, married the Earl of Carlisle's eldest son, who was known by the courtesty title Viscount Morpeth. She was known as Lady Georgiana Morpeth until her father-in-law died, at which time she became the Countess of Carlisle. (77b) My understanding is that it would not have been improper, however, to address her as Lady Morpeth, or for her to be announced as the Viscountess Morpeth, but that she was allowed the alternative usage if she preferred it. If her younger sister, Lady Harriet, had remained unmarried at the time Lady Georgiana's father-in-law died and she became the Countess of Carlisle, Lady Harriet would have taken precedence over her sister.

A lady loses her precedence and acquires her husband's if and when he succeeds to any peerage, but as long as her husband is not a peer, she retains her original rank. (77c) So if Lady Harriet were to marry a Mr. Leveson-Gower, she would precede her sister, Georgiana, Countess of Carlisle, into the dining room. But if Lady Georgiana's husband had not yet acceded to his peerage, then she, being elder, would precede Lady Harriet. This is a case where both sisters are married, but neither derive their rank from their husbands, instead still from their father. (This is one of those little quirks of the peerage that gives nuts like me such a kick!) Daughters of dukes and marquesses were allowed this "Lady <Firstname> <Husband'sTitle>" usage if they were married to the heir of an earl or lesser peerage. Daughters of earls were allowed it if they were married to the heir of a viscount or baron. Marriage with a peer replaces her rank with his. Marriage with someone outside the peerage allows her to keep her own rank.

(77d) Another example is Lady Caroline Lamb, who was known that way because, as the daughter of an earl, her rank by birth was higher than the rank she acquired by marrying the eldest surviving son of a viscount (William had an elder brother who died six months before William married Caroline). She is even called "Lady Caroline Lamb" in Debrett's Peerage (she died before William inherited the viscountcy). What is improper is the persistent references in today's novels to " Lady Sally Jersey." I've seen it so often that it almost looks right! Can anyone find a contemporary account referring to Lady Jersey as "Lady Sally Jersey"? I can find no evidence of this sort of usage in contemporary accounts. Does anyone have any original sources to check, like diaries, letters, etc.? As the daughter of an earl, Lady Sally moved up in the Table of Precedence when she married the eldest son of an earl in 1805, and she moved up again the next year when her husband inherited the earldom. For that year, she was known by the courtesy title Lady Villiers (her husband's courtesy title being Viscount Villiers).

Since she was the daughter of an earl and her husband was heir to an earl, she did not have the option of going by "Lady Sarah Villiers." In any event, the option ends upon her husband's accession to his peerage. She could not ever properly be known as "Lady Sally Jersey." A peer and his wife do use the title like a surname. Lady Jersey would never be known as Sally Child-Villiers, but she would sign her name Sally Jersey, and her friends could refer to her in informal conversation as Sally Jersey. However, there is one important caveat here. Books that purport to demonstrate "correct forms of address" are aimed at a specific audience: commoners, i.e., those of us who were not raised "in the system" and haven't married into it. Until a peer's daughter joins the Heyer Mailing List and tells me what's what, I'm leaving this and all other questions open. I have created some charts which may help explain this more clearly. They are on my Correct Forms of Address page.

John Hopfner has kindly provided the following excellent explanation of titles, based upon the Duke of Ware's string of titles in The Foundling, and suggests how a family might acquire them over the years. If you've read even a couple of Heyer's novels you probably have encountered situations like the following, from early in The Foundling, where the character Gilly is described this way: "He was the Most Noble Adolphus Gillespie Vernon Ware, Duke of Sale and Marquis of Ormesby; Earl of Sale; Baron Ware of Thame; Baron Ware of Stoven; and Baron Ware of Rufford..." Why, you might reasonably ask, is Gilly both the Duke of Sale and the Earl of Sale? Is "Duke" another way to refer to an Earl? And what about all those Baron Ware of this, and Baron Ware of that: is "Baron Ware" a title? The way to unscramble this is to realize that Adolphus Gillespie Vernon Ware would be the current head of a family that has been in the nobility for several generations.

More, you can deduce from his string of titles that his family, collectively, has spent far more time than not on the good sides of their various sovereigns. If a family is once ennobled, and subsequent title-holders continue to impress the crown with their valor, their services, their friendship, or sometimes their money, additional titles could be granted to the same family. Ordinarily the crown showed its continued esteem by granting a new title with a rank (degree of precedence) higher than any existing title the incumbent had. Such a new dignity normally was given on top of, not in place of, the earlier titles. It is possible that Gilly's first noble ancestor was, for example, a wealthy member of the gentry, or maybe an exceptionally talented soldier or minister. He might have been, let us say, Sir Adolphus Ware of Rufford, with Rufford being his family's principal seat (principal country residence). The monarch of the time, if wishing to ennoble Sir Adolphus, might have granted him a barony using the same name as that attached to his existing baronetcy (Ware of Rufford, in this example).

As a result, if our Sir Adolphus was a knight or baronet to start with, he still would be a knight or baronet. But his new barony, being a superior dignity, swallows up or overshadows the lesser one. He's now styled Lord Ware of Rufford, and would refer to himself thus from that point forward. (If it helps, think of how academic degrees work today. Suppose someone who already holds a bachelor's degree goes on and earns a master's as well. The person still holds the lesser degree, but normally would use only the higher one in her signature block, and in casual conversation. Noble titles worked in a similar way: if you inherited several titles you referred to yourself only by your highest-ranking one, except on very formal occasions.) Okay, time passes. Maybe this same Lord Ware, or his son or grandson, favorably impresses the sovereign again. The sovereign's in an expansive mood, and decides to give my Lord Ware a formal attaboy. This could be done by raising him one or two notches higher in the peerage.

So, voila: in addition to being the first (or second, or third) Baron Ware of Rufford, this worthy is created the first Earl of Sale by a new grant from the crown. Lord Sale, as he now is, continues to hold the barony of Ware, and for that matter still holds the original baronetcy if his family started out with one, but again a superior dignity (the earldom, in this case) swallows up the lesser ones (the barony and the baronetcy). More time passes, and another royal attaboy is felt appropriate. If the current Lord Sale is an earl, we can give him another leg up by granting him a marquessate. So, if this happens to the 3rd Earl of Sale, he would become the first Marquess of Ormesby, as well as continuing to be the third Earl of Sale, and maybe the fifth or sixth Baron Ware of Rufford. Still more time passes, and pretty much the ultimate royal attaboy--the ducal coronet--comes down the pike.

The same process works again: the current Marquess of Ormesby, in addition to that dignity and all the subordinate ones, gains the title of first Duke of (in this case) Sale. The additional baronies in Gilly's list could represent several possibilities: subsequent creations, or grants to cadet branches of the family which later became the senior line, or older titles conferred by writs of summons that were absorbed into the Ware line through marriage, or possibly grants in the peerages of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, to give a seat in the House of Lords to someone whose existing peerages were Irish or Scottish. Many (if not most) of the non-royal dukedoms and marquessates in the United Kingdom today represent a similar string of peerages that the family accumulated over the years. So Heyer wasn't being grandiose in describing Gilly: his situation wasn't anything out of the ordinary for a duke. On to Rights and Privileges of Peers If you dispute a fact from these pages, please contact me , and if you can, provide a contradicting source.

These pages are a work in progress and I expect them to change in the future, although what I present today is as accurate as I can make it. On Titles (If you find this useful, you can say thank you by buying one of my books. ENGLISH TITLES IN THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES by Jo Beverley Member of the RWA Hall of Fame for Regency Romance. "Arguably today's most skilful writer of intelligent historical romance." Publishers Weekly This brief run-down of English titles is for use by fiction writers. It is by no means comprehensive, but covers the more common situations arising in novels set in the above periods. At the end I address the question of choosing fictional titles. The English peerage basically runs according to primogeniture, ie the eldest son gets nearly everything. If a peer has no eldest son, the title and possessions that belong to it go to the next male heir, probably a brother or nephew. There are a very few titles that can pass to a female if there is no direct heir, but they will revert to the male line when the lady bears a son.

(Such as the monarchy.) Some titles can automatically pass through a female heir (when there is no male heir) and most can be revived by subsequent generations by petitioning to the Crown. But that's getting into more complicated areas. If your plot depends on something unusual, please do research it thoroughly before going ahead. The eldest son is called the heir apparent, since he is clearly the heir. If there is no such son, the next in line is called the heir presumptive since, no matter how unlikely (the duke is actually an ancient Benedictine Monk on his death bed) the possibility of a closer heir being created is still there. Thus an heir presumptive does not hold an heir's title, if any. (See below about heir's titles.) If a peer dies leaving a wife but no son, the heir inherits unless the widow says she might be with child. It is for her to do that. If she stays silent, it is assumed that she is not. If she's pregnant, everything waits until the child is born. An heir must be legitimate at birth to inherit a title, though that could mean a marriage ceremony performed while the mother is in labor.

A peer may raise bastards with devotion and/or marry the mother later, but a bastard child can never be his legal heir. Peers automatically had seats in the House of Lords. Note, however, that courtesy titles (those held by heirs) do not give seats, or any of the other privileges of the peerage. Most peers do not use their surnames as their title. Thus, the usual pattern would be something like Sebastian Burgoyne, Earl of Malzard. He is Lord Malzard never Lord Burgoyne. (Or, for that matter, Lord Sebastian.) As an author, you might like variety, but take as a general rule is that no one ever had two forms of address. THE RANKS OF THE PEERAGE A) Leaving aside royalty, the highest rank is DUKE. His wife is the DUCHESS. They will be duke and duchess of something, eg. Duke and Duchess of Ithorne. Address is "your grace", though familiars may address them as Duke and Duchess eg "Fine weather for shooting, eh, Duke?" or may address the duke by title.

"Care for more port, Ithorne?" NOTE that the duke will also have a family name, ie. surname (such as Cavendish) but will not use it in the normal course of events. The duchess does not use the surname at all. If Anne Pitt marries the Duke of Stone (whose family name is Cherry), she will be Duchess of Stone and will informally sign herself Anne Stone, not Anne Cherry. The duke's eldest son is his heir and will have his father's second-best title as his courtesy title. Nearly all peers have a number of titles marking their climb up the ranks. The heir to a duke is often the next lowest ranking peer, a marquess (or marquis -- spelling is optional, but both are pronounced markwess.) The title could, however, be an earldom, or even a viscountcy. Remember, a courtesy title does not give the holder a seat in the House of Lords or other privileges of the peerage. If the heir has a son before the heir becomes duke, that son will take the next lowest title as a courtesy title. If the heir dies before his father, his eldest son becomes the heir apparent and takes his father's title.

Apart from the heir, a duke's sons are given the courtesy title Lord with their Christian name, eg. Lord Richard Somerset. Lord Peter Wimsey. They are never Lord Somerset or Lord Wimsey. All duke's daughters are given the courtesy title Lady, first name, surname eg. Lady Mary Clarendon. (Never Lady Clarendon.) If they marry a commoner, they retain the title. If Lady Mary marries Mr. Sticklethwait, she becomes Lady Mary Sticklethwait. If she marries a peer, she adopts his title. If Lady Mary marries the Earl of Herrick, she becomes Countess of Herrick, ie. Lady Herrick. If she marries the holder of a courtesy title, then she may use his title or her birth title as she wishes. I'm hammering this home, but it's the most common error in novels. In all cases, the titles Lord or Lady "first name" "surname" (eg Lady Anne Middleton) and Lord or Lady "last name" or "title" (Lady Middleton) are exclusive. No one can be both at the same time. Moreover, Lord or Lady "first name" is a title conferred at birth.

It cannot be gained later in life except when the father accedes to a title and thus raises his family. So, Lady Mary Smith is not Lady Smith and vice versa. Lord John Brown in not Lord Brown and vice versa. If Mary Smith marries Lord Brown she becomes Lady Brown, not Lady Mary. (If she marries Lord John Brown, she becomes Lady John Brown. Yes, it may sound odd to modern ears, but the past is, as they say, a different country. That's the charm of historical fiction.) B) Next in rank is a MARQUESS (As above, it can be spelled marquis or marquess, but in either case is pronounced markwess.) He will be Marquess of something, eg Marquess of Rothgar. His wife is the MARCHIONESS. (Pronounced "marshuness".) He is the Marquess of Rothgar, or Lord Rothgar, or Rothgar to his familiars, and his wife is the Marchioness of Rothgar or Lady Rothgar. She will sign herself "firstname" "title" eg. Diana Rothgar. His heir apparent takes his next highest title as a courtesy title.

All other sons have the title Lord "firstname" "surname". All daughters have the title Lady "firstname" "surname". Details are as for duke. C) Below marquess is EARL. He will nearly always be earl of something. His wife is the COUNTESS. He is referred to as "the Earl of Saxonhurst" or "Lord Saxonhurst", or "Saxonhurst" to his familiars. Some earls do not use "of" as with Earl Spencer, b and in that case the family surname will be the same as the title -- in this case, Spencer -- but this is sufficiently unusual that I think it should be avoided in fiction unless it's a crucial plot point. His wife is the Countess of Saxonhurst, or Lady Saxonhurst, and she will sign herself Minerva (or Meg -- viz Forbidden Magic -- Saxonhurst. As with a duke, the earl's heir will take the next lowest title as a courtesy title, and the heir's son, the next again. All daughters of an earl are given the courtesy title Lady "firstname"; -- see dukes. All details are the same.

Younger sons of an earl, however, are merely "the honorable" which is not used in casual speech. D) Next is a VISCOUNT (pronounced vycount.) His wife is a VISCOUNTESS. He is not "of". He will be, for example, Viscount Middlethorpe, usually known as Lord Middlethorpe, or just Middlethorpe. His wife will be known as Lady Middlethorpe and will sign herself Serena Middlethorpe. His heir has no special title. All children are known as the honorable. E) The lowest rank in the peerage is BARON. His wife is a BARONESS. NOTE that the terms baron and baroness are only used in England in the most formal documents, or when the distinction has to be made elsewhere. General usage is simply to call them Lord and Lady. She will sign herself "firstname" "title". Children as for viscount. F) Next in rank -- and not of the peerage -- is BARONET. A baronet is called Sir, first name, surname. eg. Sir Richard Wellesley. His wife is called Lady "surname"; eg. Lady Wellesley.

NOT Lady Mary Wellesley unless she is the daughter of a duke, marquess, or earl. She will sign herself "firstname" "surname" such as Mary Wellesley. His children have no special distinction. The title, however, is inheritable which distinguishes it from.... G) A KNIGHT who is the same as a baronet in usage, but is a title for life only. His wife will be Lady "surname" OTHER MATTERS DOWAGERS When a titled lady is widowed she becomes a dowager, but the practice has generally been not to use that title until the heir takes a wife, when there could be confusion as to who is the real Lady Middlethorpe. (As happens in my novel, Forbidden.) Even if she has a daughter-in-law, in general usage she would still be referred to by the simple title unless there was likely to be confusion. So, if the Dowager Duchess of Teale was at a house party while her daughter-in-law was in London, people would not be constantly referring to her as the dowager duchess.

PEERESSES IN THEIR OWN RIGHT There are a few, very few, titles that can pass to a daughter if there is no son -- the Royal Family, for example. In this case, the usage is the same as if they were the wife of a peer of that rank, but their husband gains no title from the marriage, just as the Duke of Edinburgh is not king. A Peeress in her Own Right retains her title after marriage, and if her husband's rank is the superior one, she is designated by the two titles jointly, the inferior one last. Or she can say what form she wants to use. (eg The marchioness of Rothgar is also the Countess of Arradale by right. She chooses to be Lady Rothgar and Arradale in the most formal situations, Lady Rothgar in general, but Lady Arradale in private, especially when attending to her duties as Countess of Arradale. Unusual situations do tend to get complicated.) Her hereditary claim to her title holds good in spite of any marriage, and will be passed on. Since the husband gains no title from such a marriage, it's possible to have the Countess of Arbuthnot married to Mr. Smith.

Her eldest son will be her heir and take her next lowest title. If she has no son, her eldest daughter will be her heir, but until she becomes the peer she will hold only the title that comes from her birth -- eg. Lady Anne -- if any, because an eldest daughter is always an heir presumptive. There might still be a boy. COMMON PROBLEMS SEEN IN NOVELS Interchanging courtesy titles like Lady Mary Smith and Lady Smith. Interchanging peerage titles, as when Michael Downs, Earl of Rosebury is variously known as Lord Rosebury, Lord Downs, and Lord Michael Downs. Applying titles that don't belong, as when Jane Potts marries Viscount Twistleton and erroneously becomes Lady Jane, a title form that can only come by birth. Having the widow of just about anyone, but especially a peer, remarry before time has elapsed to be sure she is not bearing a child. Or rather, whose child it is that she bears! Having the heir presumptive assume the title and powers before the widow has made it clear that she's not going to produce an heir. Having an adopted son inherit a title.

Legal adoption was not possible in England until the twentieth century, and even now an adopted son cannot inherit a title. Even if the son is clearly the father's offspring, if he wasn't born after a legal marriage, he cannot inherit the father's title. However, since they didn't have DNA testing, a child was assumed to be legitimate unless the father denied it from the first. Even if the son turns out to look suspiciously like the vicar, the father cannot deny him later. This, I assume was to avoid the chaos of peers coming up with all sorts of excuses to switch heirs on a whim. Having a title left in a will, which follows from the above. A title cannot be willed to whomever the peer in question chooses. It goes according to the original letters patent, which almost always say that it will go to the oldest legitimate male in direct descent. The property can be left elsewhere, unless it is entailed, but the title goes by legitimate blood. Having an heiress (ie a daughter without brothers) inherit a title and convey it to her husband. It could be done -- anything could -- by special decree of the Crown, but it was not at all normal.

The question was asked: When writing historical fiction, does one create a title for a character, or do you have to research a title and just use a disclaimer? Answer: always make it up. When you've come up with a title you like, do an internet search to see if it exists. Also check The Peerage and do a search in Googlebooks advanced search. You can choose date of publication, so you could do a broad search there for the Earl of Glaringdangerously published between 1800 and 1830 and see if any reference turns up. You don't want to give your fictional character a title that was in use at the time. The main reason is that it's uncouth to appropriate someone's identity. In addition, some, perhaps many, readers will be aware of the real peer which will destroy the fictional reality you're trying to create. Bear in mind that most peers were simple Lord xxxxxx, so you can't have an Earl of Smilingcharmingly when there was a Viscount Smilingcharmingly. If the title was in use in any way, don't use it.

Your internet search should pull up any other uses of the title, and life peerages mean there are lots today. They weren't around a hundred years ago, but it's still not couth to use their title in a fictional work set in the past. Most take their surnames as title, but that can cover a lot of ground. There's a Lord Sugar and a Lord Adonis, both men who've made their way in life from a simple start. If you really like your title but it exists or existed, it may be possible to alter it and retain the quality that appeals to you. You may fancy Lord Amesbury, but he existed. You could have Lord Aymesbury or Lord Embury. A good place to hunt for titles is on large scale maps that show the names of villages. Often remainder houses sell last year's large scale UK road atlases for under $10, or you can simply use googlemaps and zoom in. Same thing for surnames. Place names are often specific for certain areas of Britain, so if your character's family has been in Suffolk for generations, look at Suffolk villages for ideas for names. Or you can get into genealogical records if you want something really local.

That's how I came up with a smuggler called Melchisadeck Clyst! I hope this helps, and though I'm pretty sure it's right it is open to debate and amendment. Please e-mail me at jo at jobevdotcom if you have comments. Copyright Jo Beverley. You may link to this article or share it, but of you share it I ask that you observe the following rules. Please don't alter it in any way, and please keep the copyright notice in place. Don't use it to make money for yourself or your organization. If possible, include the URL of my web site so people can find out more about my books. If you enjoyed this article, you could tweet about it Click on it and you will be able to preview it before it goes. I have an author page on Facebook, where I post fun news about life, research and books on most days. Click on the face! However, Facebook doesn't send every message to everyone, so you might want to sign up for my newsletter below. If you'd like to talk to other readers about the books, you can join a chat list by e-mailing here Like the historical part of historical fiction? Visit the Word Wenches blog.

If any of this web site is difficult to enjoy, please e-mail here Life in Elizabethan England 13: Titles and Forms of Address Titles and Forms of Address Even small children know how to address their social superiors. Sir goes only with a man's given name. To address a knight using only his surname, say Master (see examples below). Lord implies a peerage whether temporal (baron or better) or spiritual (bishops). Not every knight is a lord; not every lord is a knight. It is best not to say My Lord to anyone not so entitled. A territorial title is one which is attached to a particular piece of land, such as a county. Peers sign their names and refer to themselves and each other by their territorial titles, such as "Henry Southampton", "Francis Bedford", or "Thomas Rutland". Every woman married to a knight or better can be called my lady. For unmarried women, see the various examples. The children of a knight, baron, or viscount have no titles at all other than Master and Mistress. All the sons of a marquis or a duke are styled lord.

Only the eldest son of an earl is called lord (because he takes his father's secondary title and is one, by courtesy) though all an earl's daughters are styled lady. They retain this courtesy even if they marry a commoner. Your Grace belongs properly only to royal blood: the queen, dukes, and visiting princesses. It does not apply to Earls or Countesses in the 16th century. Archbishops share this honour as princes of the church. The style of Honourable or Right Honourable for younger sons and daughters of peers has not yet come into use. Peers, however, often receive dedications in a form such as "the right Honourable the Lord Chandos". Esquires are the younger sons of peers, the heirs male of knights, esquires of the body, and officials such as judges, sheriffs, and officers of the royal household. Esquire is not actually a title, although it may be used after a gentleman's surname; as, William More, Esquire. If you are not noble, you may wish to address those above you as Your Worship, Your Honour, or Your Lordship/Ladyship.

Children are taught to address their parents as Sir and Madam, or my lord and my lady. A noble child refers to my lady mother and the lord my father. Direct Address

Question: What is the wife of an Earl called?
Answer: Countess